New York Times
Aug 7, 1988
Life Patents: Doubts Are Registering
By Keith Schneider
LEAD: THE House Judiciary Committee struck a compromise between farmers and the
biotechnology industry last week when it decided that, in most instances, new forms of
animals can be treated like mechanical inventions and patented. In deciding that farmers
should be exempted from paying royalties on the offspring of the patented livestock they
buy, and in specifically stating that humans should not be patented, the committee sent a
strong signal that cultural, moral and ethical considerations are important factors in
drawing up legislation to regulate new biological technologies.
THE House Judiciary Committee struck a compromise between farmers and the
biotechnology industry last week when it decided that, in most instances, new forms of
animals can be treated like mechanical inventions and patented. In deciding that farmers
should be exempted from paying royalties on the offspring of the patented livestock they
buy, and in specifically stating that humans should not be patented, the committee sent a
strong signal that cultural, moral and ethical considerations are important factors in
drawing up legislation to regulate new biological technologies. The legislation now
moves to the House and Senate, and a vote could come in September.
''There is broad apprehension in the farm community, in the religious community and in
other communities about developments in biotechnology,'' said Representative Robert W.
Kastenmeier, a Wisconsin Democrat and chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee
that considers patent law. ''In some cases it is fear over what kinds of organisms will be
produced. In other cases it is suspicion about who really benefits. There is a coalition out
there that is making its presence felt in Congress.''
The committee's decision stems from a policy established in April 1987 by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office to grant patents to inventors of ''nonnaturally
occurring nonhuman multicellular living organisms, including animals.'' In April 1988,
the patent office determined that a mouse genetically engineered for use in cancer
research was a ''composition of matter'' and a ''product of human ingenuity,'' and issued
the world's first animal patent to two researchers at Harvard Medical School.
Both decisions brought protests from a coalition of religious leaders, animal rights
groups, farm groups and environmentalists such as Jeremy Rifkin, president of the
Foundation on Economic Trends, a Washington-based public policy group.
''Patenting higher forms of life will essentially allow multinational corporations to
literally own and control entire animal gene pools, from apes to insects,'' said Mr. Rifkin.
''It will reduce all animals to matter for manipulation. And it enables companies to define
the genetic blueprints of all living things as their own property. It is a profound change in
how we regard animals.'' From Plants to Animals
Biotechnology industry executives and officials of the Patent Office, however, believe
patenting animals, such as pigs that grow faster and leaner, is not a leap into new
territory. In 1930 Congress passed the Plant Patent Act, enabling breeders of trees, roses
and other plants that reproduce through cuttings to protect their developments. In 1970,
Congress extended protection to new varieties of wheat, corn and other crops that
reproduce through seeds. And in 1980, by a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that
microorganisms transformed through artificial manipulation of their genetic codes could
also be patented. ''Patenting animals is a logical extension of previous policies,'' said
Donald J. Quigg, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents.
The conflict over patenting animals and other developments in biotechnology, however,
is far from resolved. Many farmers, who worry that animal patents might enable large
companies to control livestock agriculture, supported a bill introduced by Representative
Charlie Rose, Democrat of North Carolina, that would have prevented the patent office
from issuing animal patents for two years. Last week, the Judiciary Committee defeated
Mr. Rose's legislation. Farmers also support the legislation that exempts them from
having to pay royalties on the offspring of patented livestock. Royalty payments, they
argue, would be an expensive departure from usual practices in which farmers pay
breeders for adult animals or for stud services, and then are free to produce and sell
offspring without additional fees.
Biotechnology industry executives and many molecular biologists believe such concerns
are misplaced. Genetic engineering, they say, will help farmers raise productivity, and big
and small farmers will benefit equally. And they argue that biotechnology companies are
entitled to royalties from inventions that in many cases cost millions of dollars to
develop.
The battle over animal patenting now moves to the Federal court in San Francisco where
several animal welfare organizations and a Wisconsin farm group brought suit last month
against the patent office, contending that patenting animals is illegal. The patent office
has not responded to the suit.
''Congress never intended that animals should be viewed as compositions of matter under
the patent law,'' said Steven M. Wise, an attorney from Boston and president of the
Animal Legal Defense Fund, an animal welfare group. ''Animals are sentient, have
consciousness, and are far above mere compositions of matter.''